Peter Brown writes on the Democratic strategy of targeting unmarried voters in 2006. Never mind the fact that Democrats already win this category hands down, except for single white men. Kerry beat Bush among unmarried voters by a margin of 58-40. Bush won married voters by a margin of 57-42. Marriage is one of the stronger determinates of Republican voting behavior this days, and that’s been consistantly so for some time now.
Not only is the Democratic focus on unmarried voters not expanding the number of Democratic votes, but it’s playing right into the hands of those who feel that the Democratic Party is hostile to families. As Democratic pollsters have found, the Democratic Party is considered hostile to families among voters who might be predisposed to Democrats on economic and other issues. Respondents in the Democracy Corps focus group went so far as to label the Democrats “immoral” and “anti-religious.”
Unfortunately for the Democrats, those labels aren’t far off. The Democratic base is filled with a sense of anti-religious bigotry. While Democratic politicos still pay lip service to religion, anyone more religious than a Unitarian is frequently labeled a “fundie” by the increasingly hostile Democratic base. There are 60 million Evangelicals in this country, and the Democratic Party’s increasingly anti-religious rhetoric seems bent on alienating each and every one of them. A Democrat can’t win without taking some Southern states, and alienating evangelical voters is a sure-fire way to start with a huge disadvantage in the South.
The Democrats problem isn’t that they don’t do well with urban, young, single, non-religious voters. It’s that they can’t get any traction outside of those groups. Meanwhile, the GOP is continuing to reach out to Hispanics and African-Americans, expanding their voter base. The contrast in strategies doesn’t presage well for the Democrats in the future – the Republicans are looking outward, while the Democrats are looking inward. You don’t win elections by preaching to the choir, and as Brown notes, the Democrats can’t win without winning over Middle America. Yet the Democrats are insistent on running increasingly shrill, increasingly liberal candidates.
Democrats like Mark Warner and Bill Clinton were able to reach out to Middle America and won elections because of it. Yet the Democratic base appears to be revolting against candidates who present a shred of moderation – calling them “Republican lite” or worse. The more power the “progressive” base has in the Democratic Party, the more likely it becomes that the Democrats will suffer a massive and painful split or drive themselves off a political cliff. “Progressives” may have a great deal of attraction to urban secular elites, but they drive everyone else away. The Democrats have a choice here – either preach to the choir or try to win elections. At this point, it appears that the base prefers the former to the latter.
Brown’s article was pretty much spot-on. The Dems put all their eggs in attracting “single women” in 2004, pulled in a record turnout among that demographic, yet still lost. To pretend they’re gonna somehow do better in a midterm election than in one of the most hotly-contested Presidential elections in several decades is folly. Particularly in a climate of discontent with Bush and the GOP Congressional minority, this is a perfect opportunity for the Dems’ to outreach beyond their existing voter demographic. With today’s Democratic leaders, however, even perfect opportunities are insufficient motivators to expand their base.
On the other hand, you have the Jay Redings of the world who give conflicting “advice” in a cynical effort to sabotage Democratic morale, if indeed such things exists. Just two weeks ago, you laughed off Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy and the Daily Kos’ endorsements of conservative red-state Democrats as foolish. Your thesis then appears to have been that centrist Dems Brad Carson and Dan Mongiardo shouldn’t have even tried to peel off Republican voters in their respective states. Yet here you are, two weeks later, concurring with Peter Brown’s assessment that the Dems are idiots for NOT moving outside of their comfort zone and courting voters who have recently aligned with the GOP. In your efforts to have it both ways as a method of partisan gamesmanship, you only manage to erode your credibility on conveying political strategy.
It seems that the real problem isn’t numbers… it’s that young, urban, single people, in my experience, seldom bother to vote. The Dems have nationwide registration and identification advantage, but since their blocs are made up of unreliable voters, it doesn’t mean much in the face of GOP discipline.
I think you misunderstand. It’s not that I hate religious zealots, or religion, or anything like that. I simply reject the idea that in order to respect somebody else’s beliefs I have to live my life by those beliefs.
The problem with the Democratic Left is that they show little respect for the conceptual idea of a life led by the mora;s pf religion. They are offended by Christmas displays if there is not equal time if you will for other holiday celebrations. They attempt to ignore the religious center of Christmas as a holy day. They are offended by public displays of religion. is it any wonder why folks, like, my parents who were raised democrat, no longer vote democrat? They see the party as having abandoned the ideals they grew up with, family, religion, and hard work. You can paint it anyway you wish. Folks like my parents and their friends see the democrats as being out of touch with America. They are disgusted by the idea of gay marriage,endless welfare,endless rights for illegal immigrants, increasing taxation etc etc.
People like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and their ilk are destroying the democratic party. Thats not good for america. we need a viable two party system and the democratic party is killing itslef.
No, you still don’t understand. I respect your right to live however you choose. You just don’t have the right to choose how *I* live, which is really what the Conservatives are after with their bans on gay marriage, abortion, and whatnot. It’s about control and thinking you know what is best for everybody else because you’ve got a magical book. You get offended when people like me, who don’t give two shits about your magical book, decide to live our lives differently from you.
Your “values” are ridiculous and shallow, and I’m tired of hearing about them. How do you expect to be taken seriously on morality when you need something outside yourself telling you to be moral or else?
I personally don’t have much of a problem with gay marriage, but the issue of abortion is different. You don’t have any more right to dictate whether a child lives or dies than anyone has the right to dictate whether you live or die. Once you accept the idea that a fetus is human, you can’t rationalize away that humanity. And even if science can’t determine whether or not a fetus is human under some rational calculus, the state’s interest in protecting life still applies.
It’s not about a “magical book.” It’s about thousands of years of civilization and collected wisdom. It’s about the values that have made the civilization what it is.
The people whose arrotgance makes them think that they can rewrite the world in their chosen image fail – and usually with devastating consequences. The world is full of the victims of someone else’s utopia – which is why tradition and civilization are one and the same.
And one might describe your “values” as petulant and self-centered – would you care to live in a society where your life were forfeit based on nothing more than the fact you might inconvenience another?